So it's much bigger than a normal axe? No, what I meant was the relevant property is "the materials used to make it", as a side effect of "something else". Size is not relevant, and is rather ordinary.Is it made primarily of wood and metal? Yope

Is the axe made up of handle and head in the usual way? Well, for svv of "usual" yes. But probably "no". (as you can tell, I'm an expert!) Wow! An axe expert in our midst! So why are you throwing your life away programming computers? (:Is the head made of wood? No. See below

By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 07:47 pm:

Could the man have achieved the same effect by just throwing the head of the axe into the lake? Just the handle? Did he throw it into the lake in order to prevent someone from using it? himself? Is it relevant that the head of the axe is flint? Could he have achieved the same effect if the axe had a metal head? The axe was used for chopping wood - by the man? Someone else? Did this chopping would directly damage the man's financial situation?

Could the man have achieved the same effect by just throwing the head of the axe into the lake? Maybe Just the handle? NoDid he throw it into the lake in order to prevent someone from using it? Noish himself? NoIs it relevant that the head of the axe is flint? Well, yes Could he have achieved the same effect if the axe had a metal head? Difficult to answer. I'll say no.The axe was used for chopping wood - by the man? No Someone else? Yes Did this chopping would directly damage the man's financial situation? No

By Jennifer (Tigger32382) on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 03:03 pm:

Is it a prehistoric axe? Yeswas it some type of archaelogical discovery? Yes

Is the historical relevance of the axe important? Does it prove/disprove some historical theory? Did the person who used the axe for chopping wood do so a few thousand years ago? Is it relevant that the axe was used for chopping wood?

Just checked out some previous answers. Better late than never! How true (:

The loss of the axe will prevent him from losing money, right? YesShould he otherwise insure the axe? NoShould he buy it? NoShould he otherwise pay for using/analysing/studying it? No, but you're beginning to close in a little

Is his personal economy involved in this? Or that of some company or institution he runs or works for? Personal economy

By John Faben (Bentarm) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 03:46 pm:

Is the historical relevance of the axe important? Sort ofDoes it prove/disprove some historical theory? IrrelevantDid the person who used the axe for chopping wood do so a few thousand years ago? YesIs it relevant that the axe was used for chopping wood? No

historical preservation relevant? in that his land would be forcibly bought from him by the government to "protect" it, (but at an insubstantial portion of the fair market value), which would cause him to lose more money on the land transaction than he would reap from the discovery?

Would he be subject to some fee, fine or tax for owning the axe? For finding it? For not turning it over to someone else? These are vaguely on theme, but only vaguely

By Rachel (Myth) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 05:33 pm:

Is he planning to leave the axe-head in the lake permanently? Yes

By Lewis Zeiters (Lzeiters) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 09:25 pm:

historical preservation relevant? Yes in that his land would be forcibly bought from him by the government to "protect" it, (but at an insubstantial portion of the fair market value), which would cause him to lose more money on the land transaction than he would reap from the discovery? Not exactly this, but youre only a forest or two away from the right one.

He wanted to develop the land, and feared that if the government/some archeological orginization knew that it had historical value he wouldn't be allowed to? Yes, that's part of it, but not the main point. Remember these answers from earlier in the puzzle:

does throwing the axe help him to gain money? Noprevent him from loseing money? Yes

since it's his land, will he be forced to pay for all of the "research and un-development" of the site if it is discovered? Quite so.

*************** SPOILER *****************

In Norway, if a land owner discovers artefacts of historical/arachaeological interest on his own property, he is required to report this to the proper government authorities. The consequence of doing this will often be that the site will be singled out for archaeological excavation, and the land owner will have to pay for the costs of the excavation down to the last krone.

Needless to say, a lot of archaeologically interesting finds are never reported because of this. The costs can run into the hundreds of thousands of NKr (1 pound sterling = approx. 11 NKr). Our hero wants to do the right thing, but calculates that the costs of an excavation will ruin him, and so chooses to ditch the axe.